2. The
private respondents in these appeals were appointed in the banks against the
vacancies of Scheduled Tribe as they claimed themselves to be members of Konda
Reddy Community which is a Scheduled Tribe. Most of them were appointed by the
Indian Bank but some of them by the State Bank of India. Subsequently it transpired that
they did not belong to Konda Reddy Community, as such an enquiry was directed
which was conducted by a District Level Committee which found that they did not
belong to Konda Reddy Community and accordingly certificates granted in their favour
were cancelled. In all the cases, except in Civil Appeal No. 54/2005, the
private respondents challenged the aforesaid decision of the District Level
Committee before the State Level Committee which confirmed the same in most of
the cases whereas in other cases matters remained pending before the State
Level Committee. In the meantime, in accordance with the decisions of District
Level Committee the services of private respondents were terminated which
necessitated filing of the Writ Petitions before the High Court, which have
been allowed by different orders. In all the cases orders passed by the
Committee cancelling the certificates and consequential orders of termination
have been quashed and it has been directed that it would be open to the
properly constituted Committee to hold fresh enquiry in accordance with law. In
some of the Writ Petitions directions have been given for reinstatement also.
In relation to payment of back-wages it has been directed in some of the Writ
Petitions that the same would abide the result of enquiry by a properly
constituted Committee. In Civil Appeal No. 54/2005 against the order of single
Judge when the matter was taken in appeal the same has been confirmed whereas
in other cases no appeal was filed. Hence, these appeals by the Indian Bank as
well as State Bank of India by Special Leave.

3.
Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants in support of the appeals
submitted that the High Court was not justified in holding that constitution of
the Committee was not in accordance with the judgment rendered by this Court in
the case of Kumari Madhuri Patil and Anr. vs. Addl. Commissioner, Tribal
Development and Ors., [1994] 6 SCC 241 as the directions contained therein in
relation to constitution of the Committee were mere guidelines. It was further
submitted that even if there was any infirmity in the constitution of the
District Level Committee, the order has been confirmed by the State Level
Committee which was duly constituted, as such the High Court should not have
interfered. It was also submitted that the High Court was not justified in
directing the private respondents to be reinstated in service.

4. We
first proceed to consider the question as to whether the directions contained
in the decision of this court in the case of Kumari Madhuri Patil (supra) were
merely guidelines or law laid down by this Court. In the case of Kumari Madhuri
Patil (supra) after due consideration the Court gave various directions.
Direction number 4 in paragraph 13 at page 254 reads thus:

"4.
All the State Governments shall constitute a Committee of three officers,
namely,

(I) an
Additional or Joint Secretary or any officer higher in rank of the Director of
the department concerned,

(II) the
Director, Social Welfare/Tribal Welfare/Backward Class Welfare, as the case may
be, and

(III) in
the case of Scheduled Castes another officer who has intimate knowledge in the
verification and issuance of the social status certificates. In the case of the
Scheduled Tribes, the Research Officer who has intimate knowledge in
identifying the tribes, tribal communities, parts of or groups of tribes or
tribal communities. "

5.
According to aforesaid direction No. 4, the Committee for verifying the caste
certificate shall be constituted of three persons, viz.,

(I) an
Administrative Officer,

(II) the
Director, Social Welfare/Tribal Welfare/Backward Class Welfare, as the case may
be, and

(III)
in the case of Scheduled Castes, an Officer who has intimate knowledge in the
verification and issuance of social status certificates and in the case of
Scheduled Tribes, the Research Officer who has intimate knowledge in
identifying the tribes, tribal communities, parts of or groups of tribes or
tribal communities. Subsequently for recall of the aforesaid judgment a
Petition was filed before this Court which was disposed of in the case of Kumari
Madhuri Patil & Anr. vs. Addl. Commr., Tribal Development, Thane and Ors.
(1997) 5 SCC 437 and no change was made in the constitution of the Committee.

6. The
directions given in the decision of Kumari Madhuri Patil (supra) have been
reiterated in the case of Director of Tribal Welfare, Government of A.P. vs. Laveti
Giri and Anr., (1995) 4 SCC 32 in which while reiterating it was observed that
Government of India should have the matter examined in greater detail and bring
about a uniform legislation in relation to these matters. In the case of Baswant
vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors., JT 2000 (10) SC 280 this Court held that
the constitution of the Committee was not in accordance with the decision
rendered by this Court in Kumari Madhuri Patil (supra), as such the appeal was
allowed and it was directed to constitute the Committee in terms of the
decision of this Court in the case of Kumari Madhuri Patil (supra) and decide
the matter afresh. The said directions of this Court in the case of Kumari Madhuri
Patil (supra) regarding constitution of Committee have been approved by a
3-Judge Bench of this Court in the case of Sudhakar Vithal Kumbhare v. State of
Maharashtra and Ors., (2004) 9 SCC 481 in which as the matter was not referred
to appropriate Committee in terms of directions given in the case of Kumari Madhuri
Patil (supra) the appeal was allowed and it was directed that the properly constituted
Committee shall decide the matter. In view of the foregoing discussions it
cannot be said that the directions given in the case of Kumari Madhuri Patil
(supra) were simply guidelines. In our view, the law laid down in the case of Kumari
Madhuri Patil (supra) has been reiterated times without number not only by
2-Judge Benches but even by a 3-Judge Bench of this Court.

7.
Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants has relied upon the
decision of this Court in the case of Director of Tribal Welfare v. Laveti Giri
and Others, (1997) 4 SCC 271 in which draft rules prepared by the State of
Andhra Pradesh in relation to the constitution of Committee was placed before
the Court and this Court directed the State Government to publish the same in
the Gazette. It has been submitted that according to the draft rules the State
Level Committee was required to be constituted of six persons and District
Level Committee of five persons and it was mentioned in the rules that the
presence of three persons will form the required quorum for the meeting of the
Committee. In the District Level Committee out of the five members, Scheduled
Tribe and Scheduled Caste Welfare Officer were mentioned in one category and in
another category, Anthropologist was mentioned. As presence of the three
members would form the quorum it was submitted that even if the Welfare Officer
and Anthropologist are not there in the Committee the same would not invalidate
its constitution. From bare perusal of the aforesaid judgment it would be clear
that though the draft rules have been approved by this Court and direction has
been given for its publication in the State Gazette but nowhere it has been
mentioned that the directions in the case of Kumari Madhuri Patil (supra) have
been modified in any manner in relation to constitution of the Committee.

This
being the position, we do not find any substance in the first submission of the
learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants.

8. So
far as the second submission is concerned, we are of the view that as the
constitution of the District Level Committee was in infraction of law laid down
by this Court in the case of Kumari Madhuri Patil (supra) the defect could not
have been cured by taking the matter in appeal to State Level Committee. This
being the position, we are of the view that the High Court was quite justified
in quashing the orders passed by District Level Committee, State Level
Committee and the orders of termination.

9.
Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants lastly submitted that the
High Court should not have passed the order of reinstatement. This point is
squarely concluded by a 3-Judge Bench of this Court in the case of Sudhakar Vithal
Kumbhare (supra) in which on the ground of very same infirmity in the
constitution of the Committee the direction was given by this Court to
reinstate the government servant till the matter was decided by the Committee
afresh. As such we do not find any substance in this submission as well.

10.
For the foregoing reasons we do not find any merit in these appeals which are
accordingly dismissed and the District Level Committee, now duly constituted by
the State Government, is directed to decide the matter afresh in accordance
with law within a period of six months from the date of receipt/production of a
copy of this order. In the circumstances of the case, we direct that there
shall be no order as to costs.